Upholding People's Rights under the Constitution

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Reflections of the government’s motivation in relation to hiding the facts (1)

Julia Gillard MP stated: in her email of 19 February 2008, “that no further question of intervention arises in relation to the matter. As a result the Government can take no further action with respect to Ms Zhang’s application for unlawful dismissal”. That was not the fact. The “further question of intervention arise in relation to the matter” was whether the situation Ms Zhang faced was acceptable. The answer was not acceptable. The government wanted to “ensure the situation facing Mr He’s wife does not occur again” according to the released document 4.

Why did not the Government try to solve the problem from the source, arguing in the High Court that the Federal Court’s interpretation of s. 170CK(2)(e) of the Workplace Relation Act 1996 was unconstitutional? Who would get benefits from the proper way to solve the legal issue?

Apparently, the dignity of laws, all workers including Ms Zhang would get benefits. Who would get negative impact from this, obviously, the judges of the Federal Court and High Court and the former Attorney General Phillip Ruddock. Both Julia Gillard MP and the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would not get benefit from this because they did not support the petition against the case law. Therefore, Julia Gillard decided to look after her, other politicians' and judges’ interests not the interest of the laws and workers. Therefore, she decided to hide the fact.

If she had still been the Prime Minister or the Minister for Workplace relations she would have tried to find a way to continuously hide the facts.